ypollak2/llm-router

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral context: it uses a 'cheap model' (cost implication), generates a 'compact summary' (lossy compression), persists to 'SQLite' (storage mechanism), and affects 'future routed calls' (side effects on sibling tool llm_route). It also documents the skip threshold for small sessions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 explains mechanism, sentence 3 describes side effects, and sentence 4 gives usage timing. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the zero-parameter simplicity and existence of an output schema (which excuses the description from detailing return values), the description is complete. It adequately covers the tool's role within the larger family of llm_* tools by explaining how it feeds context to future routed calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters, and the constraint about 'fewer than 3 exchanges' is correctly positioned as internal behavior rather than an input parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'summarize[s] and save[s] the current session for cross-session context' using specific verbs (summarize, save, persist) and identifies the resource (session). It distinguishes itself from siblings like llm_generate or llm_analyze by focusing on persistence and cross-session continuity rather than content creation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit temporal guidance ('Call this before ending a session or when switching to a different task') and discloses an important constraint ('Sessions with fewer than 3 exchanges are skipped'). This clearly defines when to invoke the tool and when it will silently do nothing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.